wtf niceeee

CHEATING!!! TRIGGERED!!!

😥......

this did not work
validParentheses(')');

Yeah... I'm not sure of the benefit of this kata. But hey, it's an 8.

Damn straight! :D

@constablebrew: Perfectly exemplifies that "cheating" is hard to define at all. There's also some excellent discussion on the value of an "anti-cheat" system versus encouraging stronger test cases. Thanks for the link!

@xDranik: If you wish to tighten the scope of the kata, then perhaps you should. :)

@arnedag: Sorry, I meant to call into question the validity of labeling anything as "cheating". It's said that there are an infinite number of solutions to any given problem: and surely this is easily seen in programming. I'll grant you that the solution was tongue-in-cheek, and I can agree that it doesn't really do much to advance my understanding of the language, but the rule here is to solve the problem in such a way that it passes the test case.

Take for instance a kata where the authors intent was to give the user a chance to exploit a quirk or unique feature of the language, such as redefining a basic method signature. Perhaps in that context, the "proper" solution wouldn't be called out as "cheating", but in another context would be heralded as "cheating" regardless of the fact that it satisfies the rules of the test case. Does this help to outline how poorly the word "cheating" applies to a programming context?

Is it cheating if it works? ;)

Completion is completion, mon ami...